T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RO BERT RA M ESES, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. SCO TT K ERN A N , W a r d e n ; G A RY L A C E Y , D i s tr i c tA tt orne y f orE l D or a do C o u n ty ; P A U L S U T H E R L A N D , D e p u ty D i stri ctA tt o rn ey fo r E l D o rad o C o u n ty; C OU NT Y O F E L DO R AD O S UP E R I OR COURT, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 16584 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 4 - c v - 0 1 1 7 3 - G EBGG H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 9, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T R O T T an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED FEB 18 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A C a l i f orni as t a t e c our tj ury c onvi c t e d R obe r tR a m e s e s on one c ountof utt e r i ng ba d c he c ks unde rC a l i f orni aP e na l C ode § 476a , a nd a ddi t i ona l l y f ound thathe had fou r pri or conv i ct i on s qual i fy i ng as “ stri kes” un der C al i forni a’ s T hree S tri kes l aw , C al i forni a P enal C od e § 66 7. A cc ordi ng l y, the tri al courtse nt ence d hi m t o a t erm of i m pri sonm entof 25 ye ar s t o l i fe . T he C al i forni a C ou rtof A pp ea l a f f i rm e d hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e on di r e c tappe a l , a nd the S upr e m e C our tof C a l i f o rn i ad e n i e d r e v i e w. R a m e s e s the n pe t i t i one d the U . S . D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof C al i forni a f

or a w ri tof habeas corpus, al l egi ng three cl ai m s f or re l i ef . T he di stri ct courtdeni ed hi s pet i t i on , and i ss ued a cert i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty c ov er i ng al l three c la im s . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 3(a) , (c ) . R am es es t i m el y app ea l ed. A s the fa ct s a re know n t o the pa r t i e s , w e r e pe a tthe m onl y a s ne c e s s a ry t o e xpl a i n ourde c i s i on. I R a m e s e s f

i r s tc ont e nds tha tthe tr i a l c our te rr e d by f a i l i ng t o hol d ahe a r i ng be f or e r e qui r i ng hi m t o w e a ras tun be l ta nd tha the s uf f e r e d pr e j udi c e a s ar e s ul tof thi s e rr or . A l though w e a gr e e tha tthe tr i a l c our te rr e d by f a i l i ng t o hol d ahe a r i ng, se e G on zalezv. P l i l er , 3 4 1 F .3 d 8 9 7 , 9 0 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , R a m e s e s h a s f a ile d to de m ons tr a t e tha tthi s e rr orc a us e d hi m pr e j udi c e . H e f

i r s tc ont e nds tha tthe s i ghtof h im w e a r in g as tu n b e lt c o lo r e d th e ju ry ’s o p in io n o f h im . H o w e v e r , R a m e s e s f a ils3

t o c ha l l e nge the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha the f a i l e d t o e xha us tthi s c l a i m , a nd h e h a s th e r e f

o r e w a iv e d a n yc h a lle n g e to th is c o n c lu s io n . See Koh l erv. Inter -T el T ech s. , 2 4 4 F .3 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . S e c o n d , R a m e s e s c o n te n d s th a t h is f e a ro f th e s tu n b e lt r e n d e r e d h im u n ab le to c o m m u n ic a te f r e e ly w ith h is c o u n s e l. T he r e c or d r e f

ut e s thi s c ont e nt i on, how e ve r ; R a m e s e s w a s out s poke n thr oughout the tr i a l , butne ve rm e nt i one d hi s f e a rof the s tun be l t . A s R a m e s e s ha s not de m ons tr a t e d pr e

j udi c e a s ar e s ul tof

the tr i a l c our t ’ s e rr or , he i s note nt i t l e d t o a w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s o n th is c la im . See G on zalez , 341 F . 3d a t903. II R a m e s e s n e x t c la im s th a t th e s ta te c o u r t im p r o p e r ly p e rm itte d th e C a lif o rn ia prosec ut or t o u se R am es es ’ s pri or i m m un i ze d t es t i m on y f rom a F l ori da m urder tri al . R am es es ac kn ow l edges thatthe prosec ut or di d n otuse thi s t es t i m on y a s e v id e n c e a t h is C a lif

o rn iatr ia l, b u t r a th e ru s e d it w h e n d e te rm in in g w h e th e rto pr os e c ut e R a m e s e s unde rthe T hr e e S tr i ke s l a w . N e ve r the l e s s , R a m e s e s c ont e nds th atth i s n o n -ev i d en t i ary u se o f h i s t est i m o n y v i o l at ed h i s F i fth A m en d m en tri g h t s. T h e o n ly S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e R a m e s e s c ite s in s u p p o r t o f th is c la im is Kast i ga r v . U ni ted Stat es , 40 6 U . S . 44 1 (19 72 ), w hi ch hel d thatprosec ut ors m ay n o tu se a d efen d an t ’ s p ri o r i m m u n i zed t est i m o n y as ev i dence i n as ubs e que nt cr i m i nal prosec ut i on . N o S up re m e C ou rtdeci si on ext ends thi s rul e t o a non-4

evi den t i a ry us e of

i m m uni z e d t e s t i m ony s uc h a s the c ha r gi ng de c i s i on a ti s s ue h e r e . T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly r e je c te d th is c la im . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). II I F in a lly , R a m e s e s c la im s th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n c o n s titu tio n a l. F o rh is F l o r i d am u r d e rc o n v i c t i o n s t o q u a l i f y a s “ s tr i k e s ” u n d e rC a l i f o rn i al a w, p r o s e c u to r s m u s t h a v e d e m o n s tr a te d th a t R a m e s e s u s e d af ir e a rm o r“d e a d ly w e ap o n ” in e a c h . C a l. P e n a l C o d e § 6 6 7 ( d ) ; i d. § 1 1 9 2 . 7 (c)(8 ), (c)(2 3 ). B ecau se th e C a lif o rn iatr ia l j udge , r a the rtha n j ury , m a de the f i ndi ng tha tR a m e s e s ’ s pr i or cr i m es i nv ol ved a deadl y w eapo n, R am es es ar gu es thathi s s ent ence vi ol at ed App re nd iv. N

ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6 (20 00 ). T he di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe tr i a l c our tc om m i tt e d a n Appr e ndierror, ac o n c lu s io n th e r e s p o n d e n t d o e s n o t c o n te s t. T h is c o n c e s s io n d o e s n o t e n title R am es es t o a w ri tof habeas corpus, ho w ever , because the tri al court ’ s e rr or w as h a rm le s s b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. See W ashi ng ton v. R ec uenco , 548 U . S . 212, 221- 22 ( 2006) . T he i ndi c tm e nt s a nd pl e aa gr e e m e nt s f r om R a m e s e s ’ s F l or i da c onvi c t i ons , a s s um m a r i z e d by the C a l i f orni aC our tof

A ppe a l , de m ons tr a t e tha the co m m i tt ed each m u rd er w i th a g u n , k n i fe, o r sw o rd

— each o f w h i ch co n st i tu t es a d ead l y w eap o n u n d er C al i fo rn i a l aw . H ad co u n sel p resen t ed th e j u ry w i th th ese5

doc um e nt s , i tundoubt abl y w oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tR a m e s e s c om m i tt e d e a c h of hi s pri or m urders w i th a fi re arm or deadl y w eapo n. T hu s, the Appr e ndierror w as h a rm le s s b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. IV F o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RME D.